I never asked anything to be changed. I asked the status of the Tekin ESC and why we were still at 1550g with modern cars being the overwhelming majority of the cars being raced. Then through a slurry of holy carp he's questioning the machine answers, I finally get something of a coherent answer on the ESC. If your afraid of backwards programing, its as easy as plugging it into a hotwire to change check. Takes 30 seconds. And apparently, I am sorry for this, I have me to the HobbyWing being suspect. That was my back-up ESC if I ever went to the NOVAKVTA Southern Nats. If the machine has this much trouble handling one question about an ESC and 100grams, I can't wait to see what happens when HPI has distribution problems witht he tires again.

No modifications or optional parts allowed on motor can, endbell, stator, or rotor, other than the Boss #5925 Ballistic 540 Vented Endbell/Bearing Racing Upgrade Kit (replacement) . No cooling holes or other changes allowed to motor. Fans and external clip on heatsinks are allowed, but integral type heatsinks/fans including but not limited to those that require motor disassembly to mount are illegal

__________________RC50As you come into this world, something else is also born. You begin your life, and it begins a journey towards you. It moves slowly, but it never stops. Wherever you go, whatever path you take, it will follow — never faster, never slower, always coming. You will run, it will walk. You will rest, it will not. One day, you will linger in the same place too long — you will sit too still, or sleep too deep. And when, too late, you rise to go, you will notice a second shadow next to yours. Your life will then be over.

No modifications or optional parts allowed on motor can, endbell, stator, or rotor, other than the Boss #5925 Ballistic 540 Vented Endbell/Bearing Racing Upgrade Kit (replacement) . No cooling holes or other changes allowed to motor. Fans and external clip on heatsinks are allowed, but integral type heatsinks/fans including but not limited to those that require motor disassembly to mount are illegal

seems some see it differently

Quote:

Originally Posted by oeoeo327

Not sure about that... The rules don't specifically state that you can't remove the sleeve. Parts aren't being modified in the process. If the intent is for that specific action to be illegal, the rules should state as such...

Quote:

Originally Posted by oeoeo327

When "change" and "remove" are acknowledged as synonyms in the dictionary, I'll buy this logic... No parts are modified in this case - and the motor "can", in this case, is composed of three segments, none of which are being modified. Find me literature from Novak's site stating that the colored ring is in fact considered the motor "can", and I'll side with you.

I never asked anything to be changed. I asked the status of the Tekin ESC and why we were still at 1550g with modern cars being the overwhelming majority of the cars being raced. Then through a slurry of holy carp he's questioning the machine answers, I finally get something of a coherent answer on the ESC. If your afraid of backwards programing, its as easy as plugging it into a hotwire to change check. Takes 30 seconds. And apparently, I am sorry for this, I have me to the HobbyWing being suspect. That was my back-up ESC if I ever went to the NOVAKVTA Southern Nats. If the machine has this much trouble handling one question about an ESC and 100grams, I can't wait to see what happens when HPI has distribution problems witht he tires again.

but see, you're getting the response from the RACERS, not the 'powers to be' - so what's that mean? everyone else accepts the rules and runs it that way because they understand its best for the class as a whole, not just what benefits the individuals (or small minority)

I've never heard RobK come on here and say "its this way because I said so" or anything like that.

the feedback (backlash, more appropriately) is coming from the racers who run the class for an extended period of time.

I'm not digging what I'm hearing about the hobbywing because I recently switched to that speedo - but if, its is disallowed, i'm not going to be on here saying that its time for a change of 'management' or anything like that. call me a lemming or whatever, but I understand that not all rules are going to make everyone happy - but if those rules help something grow and continue, then that's a whole other story

i hate sitting at my desk all day doing file restores - gets me into all kinds of trouble

He asked questions. That's it. Questions! Are your beliefs so fragile they can't handle a few questions?

We've got a weight rule to protect these so called older chassis to keep them competitive. So I ask "Okay, which ones? And what percentage of the field do they comprise?" Its a fair question. Here's another, "Are we really making 29 people add 150 grams of weight, so the one guy in 30 with a TC4 can still be fast?" At what point does it become pointless? In two more years we'll all be adding 200 grams and we'll go "wait a minute, why does EVERYONE add 200 grams of weight?" Why, because Elmer out in Minot N.D. still runs a TC4 and he may want to sell that on the used market and how are noobs ever going to get into the sport if they can't find a used 10 year old chassis design...?

+1....and I'm very biased USVTA over ROAR rules, just ask MoparSRT but I'm also getting a bit disgruntled over adding weight. To tell you the truth, we have a solid following here in Florida and I've never seen a car that wasn't stacked pretty solid with weight. Where are these racers that we're keeping this rule in place for?

In fact, my ebay order of pinewood derby tungsten weights is on the way and should arrive any day now just so I can try and minimize the space and the locations the current brass weights are taking up. I find it ironic that I'm going to this extreme just to minimize my frustration with the extra chassis "luggage".

+1....and I'm very biased USVTA over ROAR rules, just ask MoparSRT but I'm also getting a bit disgruntled over adding weight. To tell you the truth, we have a solid following here in Florida and I've never seen a car that wasn't stacked pretty solid with weight. Where are these racers that we're keeping this rule in place for?

In fact, my ebay order of pinewood derby tungsten weights is on the way and should arrive any day now just so I can try and minimize the space and the locations the current brass weights are taking up. I find it ironic that I'm going to this extreme just to minimize my frustration with the extra chassis "luggage".

....and thanks in advance for not getting excited over my opinion....

can you send me a link to those weights?? i'm tired of stacks of weight on my chassis as well

I truly understand the reasoning behind some of you asking for weight reductions. I do, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. In fact, it was raised when the class went to 25.5 to discourage the use of newer platforms.

In your respective areas of racing toy cars, you may have 99% of your participants running modern luxury sedans that are less than 3 years old. Weight is truly very hard to shoe horn in those chassis', I know, I to have built a few of them as well.

Not every place running a (US)VTA class has that. The percentage of TA05, TC3's, TC4's, JRX and the like, go up in certain areas of the country versus others. On a semi normal club day here, we have 50% of the field running 6+ year old cars while the other half is less than 2 years old.

To tell you the truth, we have a solid following here in Florida and I've never seen a car that wasn't stacked pretty solid with weight. Where are these racers that we're keeping this rule in place for?

There are plenty of them here in Kansas.

Personally, I have no problem with the rule for 1550g. (My car currently carries about 50g of lead.)

I understand the need for rule changes if some of the things spelled out in the rules should someday encounter problems with availability. But I don't see a reason why the USVTA rules-maker should change the minimum weight because some manufacturers decide to make their newer TC designs lighter. I think that would be the tail wagging the dog.

Actually, I find it refreshing-- and a good sign-- that lead weights are a major point of contention in VTA. It's much preferable to lawsuits over wire diameters on stators.

__________________
Howard Cano
When race results are re-calculated using the IOF (Index Of Fun), I always win.
1993 ROAR 1/8 Pan National Champion

I truly understand the reasoning behind some of you asking for weight reductions. I do, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. In fact, it was raised when the class went to 25.5 to discourage the use of newer platforms.

In your respective areas of racing toy cars, you may have 99% of your participants running modern luxury sedans that are less than 3 years old. Weight is truly very hard to shoe horn in those chassis', I know, I to have built a few of them as well.

Not every place running a (US)VTA class has that. The percentage of TA05, TC3's, TC4's, JRX and the like, go up in certain areas of the country versus others. On a semi normal club day here, we have 50% of the field running 6+ year old cars while the other half is less than 2 years old.

I truly understand the reasoning behind some of you asking for weight reductions. I do, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. In fact, it was raised when the class went to 25.5 to discourage the use of newer platforms.

VTA is no longer viewed as "entry level" and the price of that success is that you're never going to discourage the use of new platforms.

This (1550g) weight thing has become akin to NASCAR's carburetor rules. It has outlived its intended purpose. Time to write rules for the current decade and not the last decade...

VTA is no longer viewed as "entry level" and the price of that success is that you're never going to discourage the use of new platforms. Not unless you want to go back to being an after-thought.

This (1550g) weight thing has become akin to NASCAR's carburetor rules. It has outlived its intended purpose.

Disagree.

I'm going to put in my $.02 worth here. I just started racing RC this year, after many years of full size sports car racing with the SCCA. I'm 51 and have seen a lot of classes come and go in SCCA and it's usually the same reason: some racers trying to change the class. Usually along the lines "it'll make the racing easier/cheaper/safer (not applicable here)". And down the slippery slope the class goes.

On the VTA thing, if I had to lay out for the latest and greatest chassis up front to see if a) I even could do this and b) wanted to be competitive, I may not have taken the plunge. But I got some smokin' deals on used TC4 chassis and that encouraged me to start racing VTA.

What people are also ignoring is that the new chassis have other advantages. To meet the 1450g requirement in our ROAR VTA class, I have to run a 4000 mah shorty pack where as the other guys are running 6000 and 7000 mah packs. A HUGE advantage during a 5 minute race. They can run those packs, even though they are quite a bit heavier, because of the lighter chassis to start with.

With the USVTA rules, I can run a 5000 mah pack, a driver figure and fully reinforce the front and rear of my body w/ shoo-goo, etc. and still meet the 1550 g minimum. So at least I have the PERCEPTION of having a chance. And that's all the racers want.

Case in point, I just acquired a TC5 specifically to build to the ROAR VTA rules and run a 6000 mah pack, driver figure, etc. and meet the 1450g limit. Can't do that with my TC4 chassis.

Just my $0.02 worth. I like the USVTA ruleset because it really does put everyone on a level playing field. Don't like adding 100g+ of lead? Then USGT is PERFECT for that.

Mark

PS...Professor, will we see you Sunday? NutDriver and I will be there. I'll be driving the Penske Javelin. Yeah, I'm that guy!